In what way would it hurt the top 2% of American wage earners to pay their fair share of taxes?

it would damage their ego...they feel so much better than everyone else...

It looks like the consensus is that the rich are already paying more then their fair share.

Wouldn't you think a smarter thing to do is get Congress to stop spending so much?

Lets take this "tax rebate" for example. While it is simply wonderful for everyone to get $600 for doing absolutely nothing.....did anyone consider the fact that our national debt is trillions of dollars in the red, and that every single American is currently in debt in the thousands?

Any coincidence that this rebate comes during a presidential election year? Or that the Democrats seem to like the idea so much they are proposing even more tax rebates?

Cut the spending first, then we can discuss who should be paying how much in taxes.

in a financial way...

just kidding, but why don't they pay, i don't know the us tax system, so can't say,

How do you know they are not? And who defines "fair share"?

Actually, that would be fair to do -- having the top 2% of wage earners only pay their fair share -- 2% of the taxes instead of the 40% that they currently pay.

Imagine that.... tax fairness.....

- top 1% have 21% of total AGI but pay 40% of income taxes.
- top 5% have 35% of total AGI but pay 59% of income taxes.
- top 10% have 46% of AGI but pay 70% of income taxes.

- bottom 50% have 13% of AGI but pay 3% of income taxes.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

They are currently paying something like 40% of their income on taxes. What amount do you think would be fair. The bottom 2% pays 0%, that would be zero and normally get credits that give them more refund than they made in the first place. Now that seems like a really fair tax system.

Why is it you think that they don't already? As a group, they do, and pay far more than a proportional share of taxes paid. Don't buy into the "middle class pays most of the taxes" lies, they're meant to sound good and gather votes, but just aren't true.

If the "tax cuts for the rich" are allowed to expire in 2010, as promised by some of the current candidates, a lot of people will be real surprised to find out they are among those "rich".

I got an email recently that parallels how the tax system works:

HOW OUR TAX SYSTEM WORKS

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and
the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good
customers, he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.

Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

T he group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers?

How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay!

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man.

He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'

'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something importan t .

They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

You have to define "fair share." Some would tell you that their proportional share is a fair share. OK, if you do that you have to either cut services massively OR transfer the burden to some other group. That generally would leave it up to the poor and middle classes.

With a graduated income tax, the wealthy do pay the lion's share of taxes. If you replaced that with a flat 25% tax, about what it would take to raise the same revenue, the wealthy would get a massive tax break since most of them are in a marginal bracket of 25% and pay over 30% net.

OK, so lets look a way down the economic scale and see what the impact of the new and improved "fair share" is.

Take a working mother raising 2 kids on about $17k a year. She pays no Federal income tax at all. With the EIC her annual cash flow is around $20k, allowing for the FICA and Medicare taxes that she does pay. She gets by, but just by the skin of her teeth. With a "fair share" tax of 25%, her cash flow would plunge by nearly $9,000 with the added tax burden and the assumed loss of the EIC. She and her kids would quickly be tossed into the streets. But hey, she's paying her FAIR share!

Or take a family of 4 with one breadwinner earning $40,000. They pay virtually $0 in Federal income taxes due to the impact of the Child Tax Credit and the Additional Child Tax Credit. Their annual cash flow is around $37,000 allowing for FICA and Medicare taxes. If they're lucky enough to live in a relatively low cost area they may own a modest home, but at least everyone has their own bedroom. They've achieved the "American Dream" and do OK. Nothing extravagant but the bills are paid and there's a couple of dollars in the bank towards a rainy day and maybe a modest retirment account to keep them out of Alpo in their "Golden Years. Switch to their "fair share" however and the skies darken dramatically. Their cash flow plunges by $10,000 to around $27,000. The mortgage payment quickly becomes far too much of a burden and they go into default with no chance of recovery. In a few months they lose their home after they cashed out the retirement plan to try to stay afloat. They're forced into a nasty 1 or 2 bedroom flat or tumble-down shack in the high-crime part of town. Mac & Cheese is on the menu most nights and it will definitely be Alpo in retirement. But hey, they're paying their "FAIR SHARE" of taxes!

And Paris Hilton buys 2 new Bentleys and a vacation "home" on the Riviera with her tax savings. "Fair Share" is GREAT for her! And Bill Gates. And Steve Forbes.

Fair share my @$$!

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment:

Archive: Forum -Forum -Finance - Links - 1 - 2 - RSS - All RSS Feeds
The Causes and the Results. 0.024
Copyright (c) 2011 Financial Crisis Tuesday, May 29, 2012 - Terms of use - Privacy Policy